On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 12:16 PM, Eric Botcazou <ebotca...@adacore.com> wrote:
>> --- a/gcc/doc/md.texi
>> +++ b/gcc/doc/md.texi
>> @@ -4720,6 +4720,17 @@ Add operand 2 and operand 1, storing the result in
>> operand 0. All operands must have mode @var{m}. This can be used even on
>> two-address machines, by means of constraints requiring operands 1 and 0 to
>> be the same location.
>>
>> +@cindex @code{addptr@var{m}3} instruction pattern
>> +@item @samp{addptr@var{m}3}
>> +Like @code{addptr@var{m}3} but does never clobber the condition code.
>> +It only needs to be defined if @code{add@var{m}3} either sets the
>> +condition code or address calculations cannot be performed with the
>> +normal add instructions due to other reasons. If adds used for
>> +address calculations and normal adds are not compatible it is required
>> +to expand a distinct pattern (e.g. using an unspec). The pattern is
>> +used by LRA to emit address calculations. @code{add@var{m}3} is used
>> +if @code{addptr@var{m}3} is not defined.
>
> I'm a bit skeptical of the "address calculations cannot be performed with the
> normal add instructions due to other reasons" part". Surely they can be
> performed on all architectures supported by GCC as of this writing, otherwise
> how would the compiler even work? And if it's really like @code{add@var{m}3},
> why restricting it to addresses, i.e. why calling it @code{addptr@var{m}3}?
> Does that come from an implementation constraint on s390 that supports it only
> for a subset of the cases supported by @code{add@var{m}3}?
Yeah, isn't it that you want a named pattern like add_nocc for an add
that doesn't clobber flags?
Richard.
>> diff --git a/gcc/lra.c b/gcc/lra.c
>> index 77074e2..e5e81474 100644
>> --- a/gcc/lra.c
>> +++ b/gcc/lra.c
>> @@ -254,6 +254,19 @@ emit_add3_insn (rtx x, rtx y, rtx z)
>> rtx insn, last;
>>
>> last = get_last_insn ();
>> +
>> + if (have_addptr3_insn (x, y, z))
>> + {
>> + insn = gen_addptr3_insn (x, y, z);
>> +
>> + /* If the target provides an "addptr" pattern it hopefully does
>> + for a reason. So falling back to the normal add would be
>> + a bug. */
>> + lra_assert (insn != NULL_RTX);
>> + emit_insn (insn);
>> + return insn;
>> + }
>> +
>> insn = emit_insn (gen_rtx_SET (VOIDmode, x,
>> gen_rtx_PLUS (GET_MODE (y), y, z)));
>> if (recog_memoized (insn) < 0)
>
> Same ambiguity here, emit_add3_insn is not documented as being restricted to
> addresses:
>
> /* Emit insn x = y + z. Return NULL if we failed to do it.
> Otherwise, return the insn. We don't use gen_add3_insn as it might
> clobber CC. */
> static rtx
> emit_add3_insn (rtx x, rtx y, rtx z)
>
> --
> Eric Botcazou
